Mangum v. Mississippi Parole Board
2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 727
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Mangum was convicted of murder in 1981 and sentenced to life with possible parole; he alleges repeated parole denial due to race.
- He filed a petition titled Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus or for Order to Show Cause against the Mississippi Parole Board, seeking to show cause for discriminatory parole denial.
- Mangum supplemented his petition with arguments that he has a constitutional right not to be denied parole on the basis of race, citing a similarly situated white inmate who was paroled.
- The petition included factual assertions comparing Mangum to a white inmate (Hodgkin) who was paroled after serving 22 years, despite more serious crimes and greater community opposition elsewhere.
- No summons or service of process was issued on any named Board members or the Board; Mangum did not serve the defendants.
- The circuit court denied the motion the day after Mangum filed it, treating the filing as a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court properly treated the petition as PCR | Mangum argues racial-discrimination claim belongs in court, not PCR. | Board asserts petition falls within PCR grounds or is improperly framed. | The circuit court erred; petition was not a PCR petition and party could proceed on discrimination claim. |
| Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction over Mangum's racial-discrimination claim | Court should hear equal-protection claim against Board; constitutional issue exists. | Parole decisions are discretionary with no liberty interest; discrimination claim lacks jurisdictional basis. | Jurisdiction exists for constitutional discrimination claim if service of process is proper; court erred in lacking service analysis. |
| Whether Mangum stated a claim upon which relief may be granted | Supplemental pleadings show specific, non-conclusory, race-based disparate treatment. | Discrimination claim is conclusory or improperly pleaded against the Board. | Mangum stated a claim upon which relief may be granted; allegations show potential unequal treatment. |
| Appropriate remedy on remand | Court should proceed to decide on merits if properly served and docketed. | Dismiss or require proper service and refile as necessary. | Remand for proper service or dismissal without prejudice to refile; uphold jurisdictional posture. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rochell v. State, 36 So.3d 479 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (parole eligibility discretionary; limited jurisdiction for constitutional claims)
- Hopson v. Mississippi State Parole Bd., 976 So.2d 973 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (no constitutional liberty interest in parole; discrimination claims require proof)
- Mack v. State, 943 So.2d 73 (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (parole board discretion absolute; no right of appeal absent statutory authority)
- Cotton v. Miss. Parole Bd., 863 So.2d 917 (Miss.2003) (parole board has discretion; constitutional challenge may confer jurisdiction)
- Vice v. State, 679 So.2d 205 (Miss.1996) (no liberty interest in parole absent mandatory language; rational-basis analysis)
- Terrell v. State, 573 So.2d 732 (Miss.1990) (Equal Protection safeguards and need to allege improper motive for discrimination)
- Edmond v. Hancock, 830 So.2d 658 (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (parole eligibility not a constitutionally guaranteed entitlement)